Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Feb 10, 2016 15:11:24 GMT
I agree, but if you said something like anyone thrown out for checking to the head will get a minimum tariff of 5 games - once they've watched it to see if the call was correct - and that it could be increased upwards from that point at the discretion of DOPS and how severe they judge it. Then if someone moans to the Independent Panel, they could still work within the same framework, so it wouldn't drop to less than 5, for example.
And provided that was all done pre-season, guys like MacGyver & Marsh wouldn't be able to cry about it when they get hit by it, because they know what's coming.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Feb 10, 2016 15:47:34 GMT
Spot on Yotes,that's exactly what they should do.
But at the moment,teams cry to the league,cite the Dundee guy (Lidhammer I think)'who only got one game for a head hit early season and then Dops have got nowhere to wriggle because he only got one game for it.
It's simple really,but then again,this is the EIHL.
|
|
Discoray
Robert Lachowicz
Simply Clantastic!
Posts: 418
|
Post by Discoray on Feb 10, 2016 16:19:12 GMT
Latest decisions are no surprise, but show up the inappropriateness of the DOPS name. Meant to be protecting PLAYER SAFETY but they are essentially saying they are happy for a guy who gets checking to the head penalties in two consecutive games to be playing again after just one game out. How exactly is that in the interests of player safety then? And what about censure for the coach of a team that has three checking to the head penalties in two consecutive nights? Just shows that they have no interest in player safety at all, bigger bans for chucking water bottles and comments in interviews than dangerous play. Was about to come on and say pretty much the same thing. I do think to a degree we "got away with it" but then so has everyone else that's been pulled up. (Some bad ones haven't even gone so far as to get a review, such a farce the system is since clubs can decide on whether to make some reviews!) With how low nearly all the DOPS bans have been this season, there would have been full blown riots if they suddenly decided to get tough now in the last 6 weeks of the season. It would seem to require an incident to the levels of a Campbell or Grimaldi before we see another major suspension anytime soon.
|
|
Ian
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by Ian on Feb 10, 2016 21:49:57 GMT
I love physical hockey but there is no discrimination in the current disciplinary system between rough, tough play that is part of the game, verbals or a bit of toy throwing and the stuff that is way over the line. One game bans for head checks are a licence to injure opponents. If you've got a strong squad and/or a couple of straightforward games coming up, there's no disincentive to make a play that could put someone out for a lengthy spell, perhaps even end a season or career. For an organisation with the word safety in its name this is unacceptable. Bans should be a punishment and also a deterrent against similar actions in the future, while all players should know that there are strict rules in place to prevent people doing something that could seriously hurt them.
That's why I do quite like the idea of a tariff system that someone mentioned. At least it gives some clarity that if you make a dangerous play, you will likely be facing a substantial ban. Players might think twice and coaches might keep more control over their teams.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Feb 10, 2016 22:13:09 GMT
I agree Ian. And if you commit the same offence twice.....you should get an extra game for the second offence.
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Feb 11, 2016 12:39:04 GMT
Out of interest, I've just pulled this from NHL Rulebook - www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdfRule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward. (ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact. 48.2 Minor Penalty – For violation of this rule, a minor penalty shall be assessed. 48.3 Major Penalty – There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule. 48.4 Game Misconduct Penalty – There is no provision for a game misconduct for this rule. 48.5 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion. It doesn't seem like the nhl apply huge bans as a norm, which i find surprising.
|
|
|
Post by shmyrohdear on Feb 12, 2016 16:48:01 GMT
Out of interest, I've just pulled this from NHL Rulebook - www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdfRule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward. (ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact. 48.2 Minor Penalty – For violation of this rule, a minor penalty shall be assessed. 48.3 Major Penalty – There is no provision for a major penalty for this rule. 48.4 Game Misconduct Penalty – There is no provision for a game misconduct for this rule. 48.5 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent with an illegal check to the head. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion. It doesn't seem like the nhl apply huge bans as a norm, which i find surprising. They base their bans on severity of the offence and the players history for bad hits too. They're not going to punish guys for clumsy plays if they have no prior history of bad hits.
|
|
|
Post by Panthers44 on Mar 22, 2016 16:05:46 GMT
I see there are 2 reviews this week.
I'm taking bets on "correct call on the night but NO FURTHER ACTION" when you look at WHO they are against
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Mar 22, 2016 16:44:03 GMT
I see there are 2 reviews this week. I'm taking bets on "correct call on the night but NO FURTHER ACTION" when you look at WHO they are against Of course......we couldn't possibly upset our dear refs could we,by for one moment suggesting that they got a call on the ice wrong ! Not sure about Eddy,but Fitzgerald should get at least one further game in addition to the match he's already served,that was a preetty nasty hit on Bohmbach.
|
|
|
Post by blackpanther2011 on Mar 23, 2016 16:14:00 GMT
Just read that there will be NO further action against Fitzgerald and Eddy www.eliteleague.co.uk/no-further-action-on-fitzgerald-and-eddy/This so called DOPS is a complete circus. They say they protect players and yet Fitzgerald breaks Andy's nose and causes other injuries in the process and serves a dead rubber game in Fife. Simply disgusting, Question, How much are Sheffield paying them?
|
|
Pies
Forum Moderator
Reluctant Chief of ITK
Posts: 4,879
|
Post by Pies on Mar 23, 2016 16:29:16 GMT
Just read that there will be NO further action against Fitzgerald and Eddy www.eliteleague.co.uk/no-further-action-on-fitzgerald-and-eddy/This so called DOPS is a complete circus. They say they protect players and yet Fitzgerald breaks Andy's nose and causes other injuries in the process and serves a dead rubber game in Fife. Simply disgusting, Question, How much are Sheffield paying them? Wasn't really a dead rubber since they needed to win it to win the league?
|
|
|
Post by blackpanther2011 on Mar 23, 2016 16:36:47 GMT
That is true Pies and they did win with a fluke of goal, but the bigger picture is that the DOPS stand for Department of Player SAFETY and they've failed all season. And yet they can't protect a player who had his nose broken and suffered other injuries? (Bombach) Its Madness and down right disgusting in my eyes
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Mar 23, 2016 18:03:44 GMT
Is anyone actually surprised?
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 23, 2016 18:05:31 GMT
Not seen it so can't comment on that particular hit, but The Panel will ensure any ban is max 2 games anyway, so DOPS probably can't be bothered anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Mar 23, 2016 18:05:36 GMT
Just read that there will be NO further action against Fitzgerald and Eddy www.eliteleague.co.uk/no-further-action-on-fitzgerald-and-eddy/This so called DOPS is a complete circus. They say they protect players and yet Fitzgerald breaks Andy's nose and causes other injuries in the process and serves a dead rubber game in Fife. Simply disgusting, Question, How much are Sheffield paying them? Dead rubber? How do you work that out? It was the title deciding game, you played in the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 18:22:03 GMT
That is true Pies and they did win with a fluke of goal, but the bigger picture is that the DOPS stand for Department of Player SAFETY and they've failed all season. And yet they can't protect a player who had his nose broken and suffered other injuries? (Bombach) Its Madness and down right disgusting in my eyes You don't penalize a player for the outcome of an action, you penalize them for the action if it is deemed an infraction.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Mar 23, 2016 18:57:40 GMT
That is true Pies and they did win with a fluke of goal, but the bigger picture is that the DOPS stand for Department of Player SAFETY and they've failed all season. And yet they can't protect a player who had his nose broken and suffered other injuries? (Bombach) Its Madness and down right disgusting in my eyes You don't penalize a player for the outcome of an action, you penalize them for the action if it is deemed an infraction. Partially true. Fairly sure injury to other player is taken into account. Or at least supposed to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 19:07:04 GMT
You don't penalize a player for the outcome of an action, you penalize them for the action if it is deemed an infraction. Partially true. Fairly sure injury to other player is taken into account. Or at least supposed to be. It definitely shouldn't be. Outcomes of same actions can differ. The action should be the penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Mar 23, 2016 19:19:18 GMT
Partially true. Fairly sure injury to other player is taken into account. Or at least supposed to be. It definitely shouldn't be. Outcomes of same actions can differ. The action should be the penalty. Of course it should. A check to the head of 1 player that causes at cut lip should get less than a check to the head that causes a fractured cheek/skull and concussion causing the player to miss 3 months. Both could happen in a similar way. I understand what you are saying and it's not neccerserally your fault that the injuries are different, but don't do it in the first place and you don't run the risk of bans. Even the NHL take injury/result of hit into account.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Mar 23, 2016 19:56:45 GMT
The main point here is......a check to the head that breaks a nose deserves more than a one game ban.
The main problem here is......the precedent was set earlier in the season by previous stupid Dops decisions !
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Mar 23, 2016 19:59:35 GMT
I don't know the correct interpretation of the rules but if the outcome should be taken into account then I would hope that panthers made a massive fuss and challenged the ruling. I can't believe you can do that kind of injury to a plater and get one game. What kind of message does that send?
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Mar 23, 2016 20:17:09 GMT
I don't know the correct interpretation of the rules but if the outcome should be taken into account then I would hope that panthers made a massive fuss and challenged the ruling. I can't believe you can do that kind of injury to a plater and get one game. What kind of message does that send? The message it would send if i was coach,knowing i would only lose the guy for one game,would be this Dex. I would send one of my guys out to break an opposition players nose and it wouldn't be a minor opposition player either,it would be a Roy,Mosienko,Oconnor,or Dowd !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 20:18:55 GMT
It definitely shouldn't be. Outcomes of same actions can differ. The action should be the penalty. Even the NHL take injury/result of hit into account. I imagine they only do this when they have confirmed that the action did merit a ban. A clean hit that results in bad injury is not a further ban. A bad hit that results in little injury should be a further ban.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Mar 23, 2016 20:46:41 GMT
Even the NHL take injury/result of hit into account. I imagine they only do this when they have confirmed that the action did merit a ban. A clean hit that results in bad injury is not a further ban. A bad hit that results in little injury should be a further ban. We ain't talking about the result of clean hits against illegal hits though. We are largely talking about checking to the head in this instance. So within checking to the head the length of suspention will differ firstly, as you say because of the action and secondly the result of the action. We saw with Cam on Keith that clean hits can cause injuries. In that instance Cam rightfully received no further action as it was shown to be a clean hit. My point is. If you crosscheck two different players in the face with similar force and 1 gets a cut lip and the other gets concussion you should get a bigger ban for causing concussion. I am fully aware that comparisons with the real world are often tough to make and hockey even more so, but there are comparisons that highlight the point. I can punch 1 person in the face and give them a black eye. I can then punch his mate in the face and he falls to the ground and bangs his head. In the one instance I could get GBH/ABH at worst. In the other I could get manslaughter. My actions in both cases were identical but my punishment for the outcome of 1 is far greater because of the result of my actions, not my actions in their own right. There are many other cases that I could use but the reality is in every day life you are usually punished for the result of your actions and not your actions themselves. Ultimatly you are responsible for your actions when you over step the line. As a result you should face the consequences that come with the RESULT of your actions. Of course sometimes the intention is more servere and you get punished accordingly. As others have said though. DOPS is the major issue here. It all went to peices with the Brad Moran hit to the head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 20:51:04 GMT
I imagine they only do this when they have confirmed that the action did merit a ban. A clean hit that results in bad injury is not a further ban. A bad hit that results in little injury should be a further ban. My point is. If you crosscheck two different players in the face with similar force and 1 gets a cut lip and the other gets concussion you should get a bigger ban for causing concussion. I don't agree with this at all. Although I expect it is potentially the norm. This doesn't happen in other pro sports does it? Basing or judging the length of 'confirmed bad action bans' on fate is a strange practice.
|
|